Sounds impressively documented, but where do these references actually go? References [44] and [45] simply repeats the claim with no sources, reference [43] for Rouge State goes to this:
Where the reference (#15 of chapter 15) is:

Content from external source

15. San Francisco Chronicle, December 17, 1979, p.5

Which leads us to this UPI story:
So the entire story seems to be based on a a propaganda campaign by the Church of Scientology. They did not even claim to have any direct evidence that anything was spray, simply some accounts of an unknown quantity of bacteria, and a bunch of unrelated things like animal cages. They noticed this was a year when the whooping cough cases were higher than the last year, so they tried to paint a picture.

So there's no really evidence of what did, or did not happen. But it's nowhere near as clear cut as the Wikipedia references claim.

You missed the part that states that the US govt. convicted the church of scientology for stealing documents. That suggests that the scientology claim has some merit. At the very least, this cannot reasonably be debunked out of hand.

You missed the part that states that the US govt. convicted the church of scientology for stealing documents. That suggests that the scientology claim has some merit. At the very least, this cannot reasonably be debunked out of hand.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, the Church of Scientology's main goal was to steal documents about itself. Are there any existing lists of the actual documents taken?

You missed the part that states that the US govt. convicted the church of scientology for stealing documents. That suggests that the scientology claim has some merit. At the very least, this cannot reasonably be debunked out of hand.

Click to expand...

The statement by the church itself says there is no direct link between the documents and the allegation - just supposition and suspicion.